899 So. 2d 711 - State v. Maten’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he defendant asserts that pursuant to La.Code Crim.P. arts. 673 and 674, Judge Erwin was obligated to either recuse himself or refer the motion to another judge for disposition based solely on the defendant's filing a motion to recuse. This assertion is erroneous. The mere filing of a motion to recuse does not compel a judge to act on that motion. Only when there is a valid ground for recusation in the motion is a judge obliged to act. Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 671 A provides that a judge in a criminal case shall be recused if he is "biased, prejudiced, or personally interested in the cause to such an extent that he would be unable to conduct a fair and impartial trial." Further, Article 674 provides "If a valid ground for recusation is set forth in the motion, the judge shall either recuse himself, or refer the motion for hearing to another judge or to a judge ad hoc, as provided in Article 675." Construing these articles, the supreme court in State v. Beavers, 394 So.2d 1218, 1229 (La.1981) stated: Under the jurisprudence interpreting there (sic) articles, a motion for recusal must set forth allegations of fact which state a statutory cause for recusation before the trial judge is required to refer the motion to another judge. State v. Collins, 288 So.2d 602 (La.1974). Where, as here, the motion is based on mere conclusory allegations, the trial court does not err in refusing to refer the motion to another judge for hearing. State v. Maduell, 326 So.2d”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 930 So. 2d 265 - State v. Pitree

2. “does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 943 So. 2d 412 - State v. Templet

3. “into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gill